[mycroft]

nigel_k, on 2011-September-22, 21:51, said:

If the hand doesn't meet our agreed standards for 3♠ I open it 2♠.

And if it doesn't meet your agreed standards for 2♠ either? Or if, if you believe it does, it violates the legality of your weak 2 followups?

Quote

But passing is just wrong because it reduces your expected score under any plausible set of agreements. It is a bridge error in the same way that miscounting trumps is a bridge error. It may be hard to assign a number to the cost of passing because you'll never know what would have happened if you bid, but the cost is real and substantial.

While I agree with you that this is not the best agreement, if it *is your agreement* to be disciplined with your 3-bids, violating that agreement because you don't think it's right is the same as any other system violation. You are 100% at fault if you get a bad score. If you do it often enough, there's an implied partnership understanding that changes your agreement, that does need to be divulged. If you don't anyway, you will be ruled against. If you continue to violate it, and partner keeps telling you that that is not our agreement, and we're not changing to your idea of what's right, and you continue to violate it, then you're probably looking for another partner - and that's probably a good thing for both of you.

But it's a bridge error to open QJxxxxx -- Jxxx xx if partner, with Kxx AKQTx KQ AK jumps to 6 without going through blackwood because *you've promised AQ seventh*. And, of course, he'd be right, if your red suits were backwards. Sure, *you'll* not jump to 6, because you'll have tools to find this out, and you'll use them, because you'll expect partner to open on the kind of crap that we do.

It's a bridge error to open that hand if partner, with Kxx Axxx Axxx Ax, *correctly* raises you to 4, knowing per agreement that it's cold. It's a bridge error to open that hand if partner doubles 4♥ with a spade stiff, knowing that you "certainly" have at least one spade trick (yeah, if it breaks 7-4-1-1, and partner has KQ,...)

Having agreed to open that hand, open it. Having agreed that that is *not* a preempt, psyching it anyway is a PLM.

Quote

Having correctly decided to open because it maximizes your score, the decision whether to pull partner's 3NT response (to either 2♠ or 3♠) should also be based on maximizing your score, not ideological purity or other irrelevant considerations. It's a somewhat harder decision than whether to open but I would always pull.

Having decided to psych, it's imperative to rescue partner from the consequences of his reasonable decision that he has 9 count-em tricks in NT, because he doesn't. FTFY.

Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, and if we played wide-ranging 3M preempts, I'd likely pull too. But I stand by my original statement that says that *given the OP's agreement for sound preempts*, if you pull 3NT, that is almost certainly your *second* mistake on this hand.

Quote

In no way is this an insult to partner. He made a judgment about what will work best given his hand and the range of hands I might hold.

Of course not. You lied, and are rescuing partner. That isn't an insult to partner - but masterminding with the opening bid *was*.

[phil_20686]

I strongly disagree with most of the comments posted here. Obviously these dedcisions depend hugely on style, but what would partner be expected to bid with:

x
KJTx
AKQxxx
Qx

or similar?

Given that most hands with spade support will be safe in 4S when you suit is reasonable, the biggest swing hands are hands like the above where partner is hoping for tricks in his own hand and to make a 3N opposite a broad variety of hands when you might have too many spade losers. I strongly feel this is the most common swing hand for these decisions and thus I would expect partner to pull to 4S anytime his hand is close to solid. A hand like:

KQJT9xx
xxx
xx
x

would be a completely automatic pull to me. As would any hand with a poor 8 card spade suit (without significant outside values).

Hands where partner bits 3N with Ax Axxx Axxx xxx come along once in a blue moon and even if you pull to 4S you might easily have a card that yields an extra trick anyway.

[MrAce]

phil_20686, on 2011-October-04, 14:16, said:

I strongly disagree with most of the comments posted here. Obviously these dedcisions depend hugely on style, but what would partner be expected to bid with:

x
KJTx
AKQxxx
Qx

or similar?

Are you aware how poorly you choosed your example hands? Eventhough you tried to masterfully place your singleton vs pd's Qx and not his AKQxxx minor.

What kind of dreamer bids 3NT with this vs 3♠ ? Even if he sees the hand of opponents that ♦ suit is running, where does he think he will make 9 tricks and stop the ♣ at the same time when pd opened weak 3♠ ?

phil_20686, on 2011-October-04, 14:16, said:

KQJT9xx
xxx
xx
x

No one will mind you lifting with this. Unless your pd is a jackass of course. He will understand your problem even if 4♠ turns out to be bad decision. I would lift with this too probably. But this is almost the only uniq hand that makes sense to lift to 4♠(solid without Ace and no entry), eventhough there are hands pd can hold that 3 NT makes and 4♠ dont and not restricted to 3 Aces hand as u used in your other example. But everything has exceptions, and those exceptions should not be used as a proof to make a point other than mentioning that they are exceptions.

phil_20686, on 2011-October-04, 14:16, said:

... the biggest swing hands are hands like the above where partner is hoping for tricks in his own hand and to make a 3N opposite a broad variety of hands when you might have too many spade losers. I strongly feel this is the most common swing hand for these decisions and .......

Again, what broad variety are u talking about when u hold x KJTx AKQxxx Qx ? I am about to think that u have a misconcept of what a 3♠ bid looks like. You are suggesting this hand to bid 3NT and u are also suggesting that opener must bid 4♠ when he has solid suit. All the other hands that has a lot of ♠ losers are in "broad variety" to make 3 NT to justify 3 NT bid with the hand u gave

AJTxxxx
xx
x
xx

AQxxxxx
x
Jx
xxx

KQxxxxx
Ax
x
xxx

KJTxxxx
xxx
x
Kxx


etc etc, which one of these hands are u happy to be in 3NT with the hand u suggest to bid 3NT ? As i said EVEN if you score all 6 of your ♦ regardless of what pd holds, which one of these hands are u happy for being in 3NT ?

x KJTx AKQxxx Qx i auto pass at mp, i auto pass when white at imps, i may bid 4♠ red at imps. One thing i would never bid will be 3NT.

7+1 ♠ still looks like an 8 card major fit to me.

[Zelandakh]

Perhaps I am missing something, but did the OP not ask for those exceptions? Something about "particular spade holdings" to remove 3NT. If the consensus here is "removing partner's 3NT is your second bad bid of the auction" and then you say "but of course this spade holding would remove", then surely we have advanced the discussion somewhat...?

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2011-October-04, 12:21, said:

Having agreed to open that hand, open it. Having agreed that that is *not* a preempt, psyching it anyway is a PLM.

Your general point is good, but I think it's an overbid calling these bids "psyches". A psyche is a GROSS deviation from agreements, while the examples of poor 3♠ bids have just been small deviations in suit quality.

[phil_20686]

Mr Ace, we can play this construction game all day long:

KQxxxxx
x
xx
Axx

Is in a very happy spot in 3N.

AQxxxxx
x

Jx
Jxx

is a very good spot.

KJTxxxx
xx
xx
Kx

probably just needs not a club lead.

KQxxxxx
x
xx
Kxx

just needs the ace of clubs with the person on lead.

Since you were recommending bidding 3N on Kx Axxx Axxx xxx, you were clearly on board with the idea that sometimes the opposition make the wrong lead.

Most of your example hands give partner a stiff diamond, they are also very pure.


If it makes you happier change the 3N bid, add the ace of clubs - it still carries my point that the most likely way to go off in 4S is with too many spade losers, thus it follows that you should pull to 4S when that is impossible. I would pull with any spade suit that would reliably play for six tricks opposite a singleton: KQJT9xx AQJTxxx etc. Even hands like QJT-8th and QJ-8th should pull, on account of the extra spade, especially if they have no outside entry.

[phil_20686]

PS: I might have made my 3N bid too weak. I am pretty sure that isnt really the point though.

[mycroft]

barmar, on 2011-October-05, 01:17, said:

Your general point is good, but I think it's an overbid calling these bids "psyches". A psyche is a GROSS deviation from agreements, while the examples of poor 3♠ bids have just been small deviations in suit quality.

The one I'm arguing with Nigel on isn't. KQJTxxx and out is arguable, and I have sympathy for pulling that one (but partner with SAx and soft stoppers isn't going to be too happy, even though he'll admit you were probably right in general).

But anyone who says that QJxxxxx xx -- Jxxx is "a fairly constructive vul 3♠ opening", or anywhere near it, I'm happy to play EHAA with (because it's harder to weasel-word "<6 HCP, and 5-6/6-7 AKQ losers (unfavourable/both VUL) than "fairly constructive", and he seems to want to play these aggressive things); just not the "current" system.

[MrAce]

phil_20686, on 2011-October-05, 02:54, said:

Mr Ace, we can play this construction game all day long:

KQxxxxx
x
xx
Axx

Of course u can make if they lead ♣ under K, but if RHO has K u are dead, he plays 2nd ♣. Lets say they led ♥ and took A and shift to ♣ ? The outcome of 4♠ or 3NT will be dependent to what they hold and lead. And this is even if you believe this hand opens 3♠.

phil_20686, on 2011-October-05, 02:54, said:

KJTxxxx
xx
xx
Kx

probably just needs not a club lead.

Excuse me ?

Counting is required, if you are into "hand constructing" games.

-♦ lead, are u making it ?
-♠ lead and u played J, which worked too ! RHO took with A and played ♦ or ♣, are u making it ?
-♥ lead, and u won in hand with T, are u making it ? Not even close !!

phil_20686, on 2011-October-05, 02:54, said:

KQxxxxx
x
xx
Kxx

just needs the ace of clubs with the person on lead.

Really ?

Ok the guy on lead has ♣A, are you sure thats only thing u need ?

-He has AJxxx ♣ and led, u won an extra trick from the lead, are u making it without needing anything else ?

-He has ♣ A and led a ♦, are u making it ?

-He has ♣A and led small ♥ his pd took A and played ♣ to kill dummy's entry b4 ♠ established, are u making it ?

You should be able to say confidently that "yes i am making" since i granted your wish to make 3NT. Unfortuntely u are not even close to be making AFTER your wish was granted.

I would not mind playing hand constructions eventhough that really wasnt my intention but if you think so please make sure the hands u construct actually supports your comments under them. After all they are PICKED hands, picked by you, if those hands dont support your comments which hand will ?

[phil_20686]

KQxxxxx
x
xx
Axx

a club away from the K is obviously fatal, a club to the K and a club is still likely to succeed - I cash 6 diamonds pitching four spades and play a spade, the defense has to open hearts and there are all kinds of layouts where I can make two heart tricks since they must open the suit or in practice often they will not be able to avoid giving me access to dummy.

The hand with the club K in dummy is just the same, after a club away from the ace I can cash 6 diamonds and play a spade up. Its possible this might lose to incredibly alert defenders, but in practice this line will suceed against almost all denders who will return a heart through dummy. It also works automatically if south has the spade ace.

KJTxxxx
xx
xx
Kx

was a poor construction. I withdraw that one.


Nevertheless, the primary point remains that most of the time you bid 3N opposite a preempt, it is because you are either super strong balanced, or because you have a trick source of your own. In either of those cases it is right to pull with solid or semi solid spades that will play well opposite a singleton or void.

[Free]

I play 3♠-3NT as a forcing relay in one of my partnerships. If 3♠ requires a decent 7 card suit, then 3NT signoff will hardly come up, and might even be inferior to 4M. Having a relay available comes up much more often I think, and can be very helpful for distributional slams.

[barmar]

Free, on 2011-October-06, 15:18, said:

IIf 3♠ requires a decent 7 card suit, then 3NT signoff will hardly come up, and might even be inferior to 4M.

That's a good point. Converting a 3-level preempt to 3NT is much more beneficial when it's 3♣ or 3♦, as 5 of the minor might not have any play.

[MrAce]

phil_20686, on 2011-October-06, 12:15, said:

KQxxxxx
x
xx
Axx

a club away from the K is obviously fatal, a club to the K and a club is still likely to succeed - I cash 6 diamonds pitching four spades and play a spade, the defense has to open hearts and there are all kinds of layouts where I can make two heart tricks since they must open the suit or in practice often they will not be able to avoid giving me access to dummy.

The hand with the club K in dummy is just the same, after a club away from the ace I can cash 6 diamonds and play a spade up. Its possible this might lose to incredibly alert defenders, but in practice this line will suceed against almost all denders who will return a heart through dummy. It also works automatically if south has the spade ace.

KJTxxxx
xx
xx
Kx

was a poor construction. I withdraw that one.


Nevertheless, the primary point remains that most of the time you bid 3N opposite a preempt, it is because you are either super strong balanced, or because you have a trick source of your own. In either of those cases it is right to pull with solid or semi solid spades that will play well opposite a singleton or void.

No it doesnt work automatically, not even close, but i will continue this with u via pm.

[xxhong]

For a typical hand like 7-3-2-1, 7-2-2-2, 7-3-3-0, I think one should usually pass 3NT. However, for a very distributional hand like QJTxxxx x QJTxx -, I don't really think pass is correct over 3NT (here I would bid 4D). Of course many may not open 3S with this hand, which I think is a major mistake.

rob88s, on 2011-September-21, 12:34, said:

Hi Guys,

Playing a fairly constructive vul 3♠ opening, should you, or are you allowed to remove partner's 3NT with certain ♠ holdings?

[wank]

some rubbish written here. if your hand has weaker spades (often weak but very long) you can remove. if you have a long side suit you can remove.

this stuff about captaincy assumes you've described your hand accurately. for a vul pre-empt, partner will expect the suit to run opposite Ax or Kx. If your suit won't run opposite that, it's silly to risk 3NT as you'll often go -5 or some such.

if you don't open QJTxxxxx for example, you aren't playing bridge.